Abstract
Importance
Betel-quid (BQ) is the fourth most popular psychoactive agent worldwide. An emerging trend across Asia is the addictive consumption of BQ, which is associated with oral cancer and other health consequences.
Objective
To investigate the validity and pattern of DSM-5–defined BQ use disorder (BUD) and its association with oral potentially malignant disorder (OPMD) among Asian populations.
Design, Setting, and Participants
In-person interviews were conducted from January 1, 2009, to February 28, 2010, among a random sample of 8922 noninstitutionalized adults from the Asian Betel-quid Consortium study, an Asian representative survey of 6 BQ-endemic populations. Statistical analysis was performed from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Participants were evaluated for BUD using DSM-5 criteria for substance use disorder and for OPMD using a clinical oral examination. Current users of BQ with 0 to 1 symptoms were classified as having no BUD, those with 2 to 3 symptoms as having mild BUD, those with 4 to 5 symptoms as having moderate BUD, and those with 6 or more symptoms as having severe BUD.
Results
Among the 8922 participants (4564 women and 4358 men; mean [SD] age, 44.2 [0.2] years), DSM-5 symptoms showed sufficient unidimensionality to act as a valid measure for BUD. The 12-month prevalence of DSM-5–defined BUD in the 6 study populations was 18.0% (mild BUD, 3.2%; moderate BUD, 4.3%; and severe BUD, 10.5%). The 12-month proportion of DSM-5–defined BUD among current users of BQ was 86.0% (mild BUD, 15.5%; moderate BUD, 20.6%; and severe BUD, 50.0%). Sex, age, low educational level, smoking, and drinking were significantly associated with BUD. Among individuals who used BQ, family use, high frequency of use, and amount of BQ used were significantly linked to moderate to severe BUD. Compared with individuals who did not use BQ, those who used BQ and had no BUD showed a 22.0-fold (95% CI, 4.3-112.4) risk of OPMD (P < .001), whereas those with mild BUD showed a 9.6-fold (95% CI, 1.8-56.8) risk (P = .01), those with moderate BUD showed a 35.5-fold (95% CI, 4.3-292.3) risk (P = .001), and those with severe BUD showed a 27.5-fold (95% CI, 1.6-461.4) risk of OPMD (P = .02). Individuals with moderate to severe BUD who used BQ and had the symptom of tolerance had a 153.4-fold (95% CI, 33.4-703.6) higher risk of OPMD than those who did not use BQ, and those with moderate to severe BUD who used BQ and had a larger amount or longer history of BQ use had an 88.9-fold (95% CI, 16.6-476.5) higher risk of OPMD than those who did not use BQ.
Conclusions and Relevance
This international study gathered data about BQ users across 6 Asian populations, and it demonstrates that DSM-5 symptoms could fulfill a BUD construct. Most current Asian users of BQ already have BUD, which is correlated with risk of OPMD. Among individuals with moderate to severe BUD who used BQ, tolerance and a larger amount or longer history of BQ use are the key symptoms that correlated with enhanced risk of OPMD. These findings play an important role in providing a new indication of an additional psychiatric management plan for users of BQ who have BUD.
This population-based survey investigates the validity and pattern of DSM-5–defined betel-quid use disorder and its association with oral potentially malignant disorder among Asian populations in 6 countries.
Key Points
Question
Can DSM-5–defined betel-quid use disorder determine the risk of oral potentially malignant disorder in Asian populations with wide use of betel-quid?
Findings
In the Asian Betel-quid Consortium study of 8922 participants from 6 populations, betel-quid use disorder met DSM-5 criteria for a substance use disorder, had a high prevalence among users of betel-quid, and was correlated with risk of oral potentially malignant disorder, especially if users of betel-quid demonstrated symptoms of tolerance and used larger amounts or had a longer history of betel-quid use.
Meaning
To reduce the risk of oral potentially malignant disorder, any betel-quid use warrants intervention, and because the prevalence of betel-quid use disorder among users of betel-quid reaches as high as 86%, effective treatment modules addressing dependency on betel-quid should be developed and evaluated.
Introduction
Betel-quid (BQ) is the fourth most popular self-administered psychoactive agent worldwide, after caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine. More than 600 million people use BQ within the Indo-Asia-Pacific biogeographic region, and its use is spreading into Asian migrant communities in Western countries. The prevalence of BQ use among adults is particularly high in India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka (8.4%-40.0%); Nepal, Malaysia, and Indonesia (10.3%-47.8%); mainland China and Taiwan (2.3%-29.0%); Palau and the Solomon Islands (72.0%-83.0%); and among Bangladeshi migrants in the United Kingdom (30.0%-90.0%). In these places, BQ is easily available in ready-made packaging at low prices ($0.05-$0.30 per BQ), and chewing BQ in public is often socially accepted.
Betel-quid is a masticatory mixture consisting of a fresh, unripe, or dried Areca catechu nut usually wrapped (with or without tobacco) in a betel leaf from the Piper betel vine, smeared with aqueous lime, and packed with flavoring ingredients. Arecoline is the principal active agent in the areca nut, with a chemical structure analogous to that of nicotine. Its biological profile is that of a nonselective agonist of the muscarinic acetylcholine receptors, acting on the α4 and β2, as well as the α6 and β3, subunits of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, which are the 2 groups of receptors most closely associated with the addictive properties of nicotine. A high quantity of BQ use can induce cocaine-like physiological states, such as anxiety, dilated pupils, tachycardia, and elevated blood pressure. Tolerance and withdrawal have been observed in long-term BQ users.
Use of BQ is not formally identified as an addictive behavior according to global substance evaluations. Nonetheless, studies have begun to use the DSM-IV to measure the dependent use of BQ. In the DSM-5, abuse and dependence as defined in the DSM-IV were merged into a single disorder with a severity metric based on the symptom count. Changes to the criteria for substance use disorder (SUD) in the DSM-5 include the removal of the legal problems criterion, the addition of craving, and a diagnostic minimum threshold of at least 2 symptoms. However, no epidemiologic data on BQ use were updated using the DSM-5.
Prolonged BQ use is linked with oral potentially malignant disorder (OPMD). During BQ chewing, the areca nut–derived nitrosamines and reactive oxygen species produced in the oral cavity can induce genetic damage to exposed oral keratinocytes. Persistent BQ exposures predispose oral cells to preneoplastic lesions, leading to full malignant neoplasms. Frequency of use is a central determinant of this outcome; however, a subsequent controlling addiction, manifesting as impaired control, social impairment, risky use, and pharmacologic symptoms, underlying its increased use should also be considered. Our understanding of the psychiatric dimensions associated with addictive consumption of BQ needs to be improved.
In response to the scope of BQ use and the potential health problems in Asia-Pacific countries, the Asian Betel-quid Consortium conducted a joint study to evaluate the effects of BQ use disorder (BUD) on oral health and offered strategies to activate outreach measures for the prevention of oral diseases. We define individuals with BUD as users of BQ who met all the DSM-5 SUD diagnostic criteria. We sought to elucidate the following 3 research issues: the validity of DSM-5 symptoms for measuring BUD use and the patterns of BUD use among current chewers; the country-dependent parameters that determine BUD; and the association between BUD and OPMD.
Methods
Participants
Six cross-sectional studies were concurrently conducted across East Asia (Taiwan and mainland China), Southeast Asia (Malaysia and Indonesia), and South Asia (Nepal and Sri Lanka) between January 1, 2009, and February 28, 2010, under the Asian Betel-quid Consortium study. Research details are described in a previous article. eTable 1 in the Supplement shows the sociodemographic factors. The number of recruited participants from each study region ranged from 1002 to 2356, indicating a high rate of response (68%-100%). An identical study protocol was administered to all study populations and approved by the Ethics Review Committee of Kaohsiung Medical University (Taiwan), Central South University (mainland China), the University of Malaya (Malaysia), Airlangga University (Indonesia), Kathmandu University (Nepal), and the University of Peradeniya (Sri Lanka). Written informed consent was collected from all participants.
Diagnostic Instrument
A survey questionnaire was designed using proper materials from World Health Organization (WHO) surveys and national prevalence studies. The collected data consisted of sociodemographic factors; disease history; age of initial BQ consumption; quantity of daily use; frequency of use; years of consumption; types of BQ, alcohol, and cigarettes used; family history of substance use; and years since cessation for those who no longer used BQ.
Our interview questions were adapted from the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, Text Revision Axis I Disorders for SUDs and Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN). All included symptoms were updated to fully match the DSM-5 SUD diagnostic criteria. We merged the DSM-IV–derived BQ symptoms for abuse and dependence, removed the legal problem criterion, and used the SCAN-derived craving symptom for DSM-5–defined BUD. Questions were initially written in English and translated into the primary language or dialect of each study population. All questions were back-translated into English so that their content and semantic equivalence could be verified by bilingual specialists. The standardized questionnaire was used in all study areas, and our interviews were conducted in local languages.
BQ Use Disorder
Following WHO guidelines, a lifetime BQ user was defined as an individual who had used at least 1 quid of any type of BQ product per day for a minimum of 6 months. Among lifetime users, current users were defined as those who had used BQ within the preceding 12 months before the interview, and past users were those who had not used BQ for at least 12 months before the interview.
We used 11 DSM-5 symptoms to assess BUD for current users according to the data obtained. These symptoms included the following: large amount or longer history of BQ use (BQ is used in larger amounts or over a longer period than intended); unsuccessful cutdown (unsuccessful efforts to reduce or control BQ use); time spent chewing (spending a large amount of time chewing BQ); craving (having a strong desire or sense of compulsion to use BQ); neglected major roles (recurrent use of BQ results in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work or home); social or interpersonal problems (continual BQ use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of its use); given up activities (a reduction in important social, occupational, or recreational activities owing to BQ use); hazardous use (recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous); continued use despite knowing problems (continual BQ chewing despite an awareness of the physical or psychological problems caused by chewing); tolerance; and withdrawal. The symptoms were grouped into 4 pathologic behavioral categories named impaired control (large amount or longer history of BQ use, unsuccessful cutdown, time spent chewing, and craving), social impairment (neglected major roles, social or interpersonal problems, and given up activities), risky use (hazardous use and continued use despite knowing problems), and pharmacologic symptoms (tolerance and withdrawal).
A positive diagnosis of BUD required the presence of at least 2 of the 11 symptoms within 12 months before interview. We followed the DSM-5 criteria for SUD; current users of BQ with 0 to 1 symptoms were classified as having no BUD, those with 2 to 3 symptoms as having mild BUD, those with 4 to 5 symptoms as having moderate BUD, and those with 6 or more symptoms as having severe BUD.
Oral Potentially Malignant Disorder
All dental and medical professionals completed a standardized OPMD training course for diagnosing oral submucous fibrosis, oral leukoplakia, and oral lichen planus. The characteristics and site of each oral disorder were carefully examined using portable plane dental mirrors for soft-tissue retraction and dental lights for illumination, according to WHO clinical criteria.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016. Survey data modules of Stata, version 15 (StataCorp), were used to adjust for multistage sampling design and complex sampling weights. A 4-step procedure was used to analyze data. First, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis to test for a unidimensional BUD construct. Two goodness of fit criteria were used to determine unidimensionality (the root-mean-square error of approximation <0.05 and the comparative fit index >0.95). After unidimensionality was established, the item parameters were generated from an Item Response Theory 2-parameter logistic model in Mplus, version 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén). Convergent validity between the antecedent, concurrent, and subsequent correlates and the unidimensional BUD factor scores were conducted through correlation analyses. Cohen conventions for interpreting the effect size of the correlations were used to determine the strength of the associations between each correlate and BUD factor scores. Second, we estimated the prevalence and proportion of BUD in each study region based on weighted data. Third, we constructed multinomial logistic regression models to evaluate the associations of sociodemographic factors with no BUD, mild BUD, moderate BUD, and severe BUD compared with nonusers of BQ. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were used to assess the association of chewing characteristics with pathologic behaviors and BUD diagnoses for current users of BQ. Fourth, 4-stage modeling and global tests of joint significance via stepwise addition of each variable block were used to study the association of OPMD with demographic factors, characteristics of BQ use, DSM-5 symptoms, and BUD diagnosis. Because low OPMD prevalences were observed in Malaysia and Nepal, we performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the associations between BUD and OPMD, before and after excluding the Malaysian and Nepalese data.
Results
Measurement Validity of DSM-5 Symptoms for BUD
An excellent fit was calculated for a unidimensional construct to measure the BUD factor scores (root-mean-square error of approximation, 0.026; comparative fit index, 0.995; Table 1). The factor loadings for DSM-5 symptoms ranged from 0.701 to 0.985. Item parameters showed that hazardous use provided the most information (item discrimination, 5.671), whereas social or interpersonal problems offered the least information (item discrimination, 0.983) among the 11 symptoms. The corresponding item difficulty parameters ranged from 1.039 to 2.898, which captured the latent trait level of BUD at which a user has a 50% probability of exhibiting the symptom. Regarding convergent validity, the antecedent correlates of educational level, family use of BQ, and friend use of BQ were significantly associated with BUD factor scores (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Betel quid–associated concurrent correlates and substance-associated subsequent correlates had a strong correlation with BUD factor scores (correlation coefficients, 0.64-0.92).
Table 1. Factor Loadings and Item Parameters for a Unidimensional Model of DSM-5 Betel-Quid Use Disorder, Combined Results From 6 Asian Populationsa.
Factor Indicators | Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Factor Loadings | Item Response Theory, Item Parameters | |
---|---|---|---|
Item Discrimination | Item Difficulty | ||
Larger amount or longer history of betel-quid use | 0.794 | 1.306 | 1.924 |
Unsuccessful cutdown | 0.950 | 3.037 | 1.278 |
Time spent using betel-quid | 0.714 | 1.020 | 2.171 |
Craving | 0.970 | 3.957 | 1.130 |
Neglected major roles | 0.841 | 1.554 | 1.845 |
Social or interpersonal problems | 0.701 | 0.983 | 2.898 |
Given up activities | 0.959 | 3.368 | 1.295 |
Hazardous use | 0.985 | 5.671 | 1.039 |
Continued use despite knowing problems | 0.929 | 2.515 | 1.337 |
Tolerance | 0.886 | 1.915 | 1.628 |
Withdrawal | 0.980 | 4.988 | 1.105 |
Model fit information | |||
χ2 Value for model fit test | 310.850 | NA | NA |
df | 44 | NA | NA |
P value | <.001 | NA | NA |
Root-mean-square error of approximation | 0.026 | NA | NA |
Comparative fit index | 0.995 | NA | NA |
Abbreviation: NA, not applicable.
For a total of 8733 participants.
Prevalence and Severity of BUD
The prevalence of current chewers across the 6 populations was 6.7% to 39.5%, with the highest prevalence observed in Nepal (Table 2). In East Asia (Taiwan and mainland China), the 12-month prevalence of current users of BQ with BUD was 4.7% to 8.1%, in Southeast Asia (Malaysia and Indonesia), the 12-month prevalence of current users of BQ with BUD was 14.8% to 29.4%, and in South Asia (Nepal and Sri Lanka), the 12-month prevalence of current BQ users with BUD was 8.4% to 39.2% (18.0% overall). In East Asia (Taiwan and mainland China), the proportion of BUD in current users of BQ was 61.1% to 70.8%, in Southeast Asia (Malaysia and Indonesia), the proportion of BUD in current users of BQ was 75.8% to 98.5%, and in South Asia (Nepal and Sri Lanka), the proportion of BUD in current users of BQ was 55.8% to 99.3% (86.0% overall).
Table 2. Prevalence and Pattern of 12-Month DSM-5 BUD Symptoms.
Factor | Taiwan (n = 1548)a | Mainland China (n = 2356)b | Malaysia (n = 1003)c | Indonesia (n = 1941)d | Nepal (n = 1002)e | Sri Lanka (n = 1072)f | P Valueg | Overall (N = 8922) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Prevalence of BQ use, mean (SE) % | ||||||||
Past use | 2.7 (0.5) | 2.9 (0.3) | 1.6 (0.4) | 0.7 (0.2) | 0.0 (0.0) | 1.8 (0.4) | <.001 | 1.9 (0.2) |
Current use | 6.7 (0.9) | 13.3 (0.7) | 19.6 (1.5) | 29.8 (2.0) | 39.5 (3.0) | 15.1 (1.2) | <.001 | 20.9 (1.0) |
Prevalence of current BQ use with BUD, mean (SE), % | ||||||||
None (0-1 symptoms) | 2.0 (0.4) | 5.2 (0.5) | 4.7 (0.7) | 0.4 (0.2) | 0.3 (0.2) | 6.7 (0.8) | <.001 | 2.9 (0.3) |
Positive for BUDh | 4.7 (0.8) | 8.1 (0.6) | 14.8 (1.3) | 29.4 (2.0) | 39.2 (3.0) | 8.4 (0.9) | <.001 | 18.0 (0.9) |
Mild (2-3 symptoms) | 1.8 (0.5) | 4.1 (0.4) | 6.9 (0.9) | 2.3 (0.5) | 0.0 (0.0) | 4.5 (0.7) | NA | 3.2 (0.3) |
Moderate (4-5 symptoms) | 1.5 (0.5) | 1.8 (0.3) | 6.2 (0.8) | 6.4 (0.8) | 39.2 (3.0) | 2.9 (0.6) | NA | 4.3 (0.4) |
Severe (≥6 symptoms) | 1.4 (0.4) | 2.2 (0.3) | 1.7 (0.4) | 20.7 (1.8) | 0.0 (0.0) | 1.0 (0.3) | NA | 10.5 (0.9) |
Proportion of BUD in current BQ users, mean (SE), % | ||||||||
None (0-1 symptoms) | 29.2 (5.7) | 38.9 (2.8) | 24.2 (3.2) | 1.5 (0.6) | 0.7 (0.4) | 44.2 (4.1) | NA | 14.0 (1.3) |
Positive for BUDh | 70.8 (5.7) | 61.1 (2.8) | 75.8 (3.2) | 98.5 (0.6) | 99.3 (0.4) | 55.8 (4.1) | <.001 | 86.0 (1.3) |
Mild (2-3 symptoms) | 26.8 (6.0) | 31.1 (2.7) | 35.4 (3.7) | 7.9 (1.7) | 0.0 (0.0) | 29.7 (3.8) | NA | 15.5 (1.5) |
Moderate (4-5 symptoms) | 22.9 (5.8) | 13.8 (2.0) | 31.9 (3.4) | 21.3 (2.5) | 99.3 (0.4) | 19.5 (3.4) | NA | 20.6 (1.8) |
Severe (≥6 symptoms) | 21.1 (5.5) | 16.2 (2.1) | 8.5 (2.0) | 69.4 (3.0) | 0.0 (0.0) | 6.6 (2.0) | NA | 50.0 (2.6) |
Abbreviations: BQ, betel-quid; BUD, BQ use disorder; NA, not applicable.
Kaohsiung and Pingtung.
Changsha, Liuyang, Changde, Yongzhou, LouDi, and Xiangxi Prefecture.
Pulau Carey, Simpang Morib, Klang, Kampung Sembirai, Kota Belud, Kampung, Tebedu/Mongkos, and Serian.
Deli Serdang, Pacitan, Banyuwangi, Jembrana, Mataram, Tana Toraja, and Wamena.
Kathmandu, Chitwan, Nawalparasi, and Pokhara.
Gangawata Korale, Udunuwara, and Yatinuwara.
For the difference in characteristics of BQ use across study regions that was obtained adjusted for sex and age.
Classified as none, mild, moderate, and severe according to DSM-5 criteria.
Demographic Factors Associated With BUD
In mainland China, men and younger people were more likely to have any type of BUD (eTable 3 in the Supplement). By contrast, in Malaysia, women and older people had a higher prevalence of BUD. A higher educational level correlated with a lower risk of mild to severe BUD in Taiwan, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka. Cigarette smokers in mainland China were more likely to have all types of BUD (AOR, 3.5-5.7), whereas Malaysian and Indonesian smokers were less likely to have mild to severe BUD (AOR, 0.02-0.30). Alcohol drinkers in Taiwan and Malaysia had a 2.9- to 32.1-fold risk of mild to severe BUD, whereas alcohol drinkers in Indonesia had a 0.3- to 0.4-fold risk of moderate to severe BUD.
Use Characteristics Associated With BUD
Table 3 shows that, in the combined data of users of BQ, family use was associated with a 2.3-fold higher likelihood of impaired control and a 0.6-fold lower likelihood of social impairment than did no family use of BQ. Having friends who used BQ was associated with a 2.8-fold higher likelihood of social impairment than did not having friends who used BQ. Overall, family use was associated with a 2.0- to 3.0-fold risk of developing moderate to severe BUD compared with no BUD, and having friends who used BQ was associated with a 3.6-fold risk of developing mild BUD compared with no BUD. In addition, high frequency of use was associated with impaired control (AOR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1-1.3]), social impairment (AOR, 1.1 [95% CI, 1.0-1.2]), risky use (AOR, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.2-1.6]), pharmacologic symptoms (AOR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.0-1.4]), and moderate (AOR, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.1-1.5]) to severe (AOR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.4-2.0]) BUD. The amount of BQ used was also associated with impaired control (AOR, 1.1 [95% CI, 1.1-1.2]), risky use (AOR, 1.1 [95% CI, 1.0-1.1]), pharmacologic symptoms (AOR, 1.1 [95% CI, 1.0-1.1]), and mild (AOR, 1.1 [95% CI, 1.0-1.1]), moderate (AOR, 1.1 [95% CI, 1.0-1.2]), and severe (AOR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1-1.2]) BUD.
Table 3. Association of Use Characteristics With Pathologic Behaviors and BQ Use Disorder Among Current Users of BQ, Combined Results From 6 Asian Populationsa.
Use Characteristic | Distribution (n = 2097) | Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)b | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pathologic Behavior | BQ Use Disorderc | |||||||
Impaired Control | Social Impairment | Risky Use | Pharmacologic Symptom | Mild vs None | Moderate vs None | Severe vs None | ||
Categorical characteristic, % | ||||||||
Family BQ use, yes vs no | 52.7/47.3 | 2.3 (1.4-3.8) | 0.6 (0.4-0.9) | 1.1 (0.7-1.7) | 1.3 (0.8-2.2) | 1.6 (0.9-2.8) | 3.0 (1.6-5.7) | 2.0 (1.1-3.6) |
Friend BQ use, yes vs no | 81.3/18.7 | 1.8 (0.9-3.4) | 2.8 (1.4-5.3) | 0.7 (0.4-1.2) | 2.0 (0.9-4.1) | 3.6 (1.4-9.1) | 1.1 (0.5-2.7) | 2.4 (0.9-5.8) |
Swallowing BQ juice, yes vs no | 34.3/65.7 | 1.2 (0.7-2.2) | 1.0 (0.6-1.6) | 1.0 (0.5-1.9) | 1.0 (0.5-1.7) | 1.8 (0.9-3.4) | 1.8 (0.8-3.9) | 0.9 (0.4-1.9) |
BQ use with tobacco, yes vs no | 51.2/48.8 | 0.4 (0.2-1.0) | 0.4 (0.2-1.0) | 0.8 (0.3-2.4) | 1.0 (0.3-4.2) | 0.4 (0.1-1.4) | 0.4 (0.1-1.1) | 0.3 (0.1-0.7) |
Continuous characteristic, median (IQR) | ||||||||
Starting age, y | 23 (18-33) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) | 1.0 (0.9-1.1) | 1.1 (1.0-1.1) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) |
Frequency, d/wk | 7 (5-7) | 1.2 (1.1-1.3) | 1.1 (1.0-1.2) | 1.4 (1.2-1.6) | 1.2 (1.0-1.4) | 1.0 (0.9-1.2) | 1.3 (1.1-1.5) | 1.6 (1.4-2.0) |
Amount, quid/d | 5 (3-10) | 1.1 (1.1-1.2) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) | 1.1 (1.0-1.1) | 1.1 (1.0-1.1) | 1.1 (1.0-1.1) | 1.1 (1.0-1.2) | 1.2 (1.1-1.2) |
Use duration, y | 12 (5-27) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) | 1.1 (1.0-1.1) | 1.0 (0.9-1.1) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) |
Abbreviations: BQ, betel-quid; IQR, interquartile range.
The adjusted odds ratios of DSM-5 pathologic behaviors (yes vs no) were used to measure the association of use characteristics with pathologic behavior, and the adjusted odds ratios of BQ use disorder (mild, moderate, and severe compared with none) were used to measure the association of use characteristics with severity of BQ use disorder.
Adjusted for sex, age, educational level, cigarette smoking, alcohol drinking, amount of BQ used, and duration of BQ use, and study area.
Users with 0 to 1 DSM-5 symptoms were defined as having no BQ use disorder, those with 2 to 3 symptoms as having mild BQ use disorder, those with 4 to 5 symptoms as having moderate BQ use disorder, and those with 6 or more symptoms as having severe BQ use disorder.
OPMD and BUD
The overall prevalence of OPMD was higher in users of BQ with moderate to severe BUD (26.8%-27.2%) than in those with no BUD or mild BUD (4.3%-5.8%) and nonusers of BQ (4.2%) (eTable 4 in the Supplement). The symptoms of tolerance, larger amount or longer history of BQ use, and continued use despite knowing problems showed the highest prevalence of OPMD (40.8%, 31.6%, and 29.3%, respectively) (eTable 5 in the Supplement). These 3 symptoms also exhibited 4.3-, 2.9-, and 2.0-fold higher likelihoods of OPMD compared with users of BQ without these symptoms, after adjustment for demographic and risk factors, use characteristics, and other symptoms (Table 4; model 3). Higher risk of OPMD was associated with a higher number of pharmacologic symptom behaviors (AOR, 3.4 [95% CI, 1.7-6.6] for 1 increase in symptom numbers; P < .001 for linear trend). We found that having no BUD was associated with a 22.0-fold (95% CI, 4.3-112.4) higher risk of OPMD compared with nonusers of BQ, having mild BUD was associated with a 9.6-fold (95% CI, 1.8-56.8) higher risk, having moderate BUD was associated with a 35.5-fold (95% CI, 4.3-292.3) higher risk, and having severe BUD was associated with a 27.5-fold (95% CI, 1.6-461.4) higher risk (Table 4; model 4). No interaction effects on OPMD were observed between BUD and the consumption of alcohol and cigarettes. Sensitivity analyses, before and after excluding the Malaysian and Nepalese data, confirmed similar results.
Table 4. Odds of Oral Potentially Malignant Disorder Associated With Demographic and Risk Factors, Use Characteristics, and DSM-5 BQ Use Disordera.
Factor | Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)b | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
Demographic and risk factors | ||||
Sex, male vs female | 1.9 (1.2-3.1) | 1.2 (0.7-2.1) | 0.8 (0.4-1.4) | 0.7 (0.4-1.2) |
Age, y | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) |
Educational level, y | 0.8 (0.5-1.3) | 1.0 (0.8-1.3) | 1.1 (0.9-1.3) | 1.0 (0.8-1.3) |
Study regionc | ||||
Mainland China vs Taiwan | 0.8 (0.3-2.3) | 0.4 (0.1-1.3) | 0.4 (0.1-1.4) | 0.4 (0.1-1.3) |
Indonesia vs Taiwan | 12.0 (3.5-41.3) | 18.4 (5.7-59.0) | 13.6 (4.5-41.3) | 11.8 (3.6-38.1) |
Nepal vs Taiwan | 0.3 (0.1-1.6) | 0.6 (0.1-3.8) | 0.1 (0.0-0.7) | 0.02 (0.0-0.2) |
Sri Lanka vs Taiwan | 0.1 (0.0-0.5) | 0.1 (0.0-0.3) | 0.1 (0.0-0.5) | 0.1 (0.0-0.4) |
Cigarette smoking, yes vs no | 1.5 (0.8-2.8) | 2.4 (1.1-5.4) | 2.4 (1.1-5.1) | 2.5 (1.1-5.5) |
Alcohol drinking, yes vs no | 2.7 (1.4-5.1) | 2.6 (1.2-5.7) | 2.6 (1.3-5.5) | 2.8 (1.3-5.8) |
P value for variable block addedd | <.001 | NA | NA | NA |
Use characteristics | ||||
Family use of BQ, yes vs no | NA | 3.9 (2.4-6.3) | 2.1 (1.3-3.5) | 1.8 (1.1-2.8) |
Friend use of BQ, yes vs no | NA | 1.4 (0.6-3.3) | 1.2 (0.6-2.4) | 0.7 (0.4-1.5) |
Swallowing BQ juice, yes vs no | NA | 1.6 (0.8-2.9) | 1.6 (0.9-2.8) | 1.0 (0.5-1.9) |
BQ use with tobacco, yes vs no | NA | 0.6 (0.3-1.3) | 0.7 (0.4-1.4) | NA |
Frequency, d/wk | NA | 1.5 (1.3-1.8) | 1.3 (1.1-1.5) | 1.0 (0.9-1.2) |
Amount, quid/d | NA | 0.9 (0.8-0.9) | 0.9 (0.8-0.9) | 0.9 (0.8-0.9) |
Use duration, y | NA | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) |
P value for variable block addedd | NA | <.001 | NA | NA |
DSM-5 symptoms (yes vs no) | ||||
Impaired control | ||||
Larger amount or longer history of BQ use | NA | NA | 2.9 (1.5-5.6) | 2.4 (1.2-4.7) |
Unsuccessful cutdown | NA | NA | 1.0 (0.5-2.2) | 0.8 (0.4-1.8) |
Time spent using BQ | NA | NA | 0.7 (0.3-1.6) | 0.8 (0.4-1.6) |
Craving | NA | NA | 0.9 (0.3-2.9) | 0.6 (0.2-1.8) |
Continuous symptom, No. of impaired control symptoms | NA | NA | 1.3 (0.9-1.9) | 1.1 (0.8-1.7) |
Social impairment | ||||
Neglected major roles | NA | NA | 0.3 (0.2-0.7) | 0.3 (0.1-0.7) |
Social or interpersonal problems | NA | NA | 1.1 (0.4-3.1) | 1.0 (0.4-2.5) |
Given up activities | NA | NA | 2.0 (0.9-4.3) | 1.6 (0.7-3.7) |
Continuous symptom, No. of social impairment symptoms | NA | NA | 0.8 (0.5-1.2) | 0.7 (0.4-1.1) |
Risky use | ||||
Hazardous use | NA | NA | 0.8 (0.3-1.9) | 0.6 (0.3-1.3) |
Continued use despite knowing problems | NA | NA | 2.0 (1.0-3.9) | 1.8 (0.9-3.7) |
Continuous symptom, No. of risky use symptoms | NA | NA | 1.4 (0.8-2.4) | 1.3 (0.8-2.3) |
Pharmacologic symptom | ||||
Tolerance | NA | NA | 4.3 (2.1-8.9) | 4.1 (1.9-8.7) |
Withdrawal | NA | NA | 2.4 (0.8-7.7) | 1.6 (0.6-4.4) |
Continuous symptom, No. of pharmacologic symptoms | NA | NA | 3.4 (1.7-6.6) | 2.9 (1.4-6.1) |
P value for variable block addedd | NA | NA | <.001 | NA |
DSM-5–defined BQ use disordere | ||||
None vs nonuser of BQ | NA | NA | NA | 22.0 (4.3-112.4) |
Mild vs nonuser of BQ | NA | NA | NA | 9.6 (1.8-56.8) |
Moderate vs nonuser of BQ | NA | NA | NA | 35.5 (4.3-292.3) |
Severe vs nonuser of BQ | NA | NA | NA | 27.5 (1.6-461.4) |
P value for variable block addedd | NA | NA | NA | <.001 |
Abbreviations: BQ, betel-quid; NA, nonappreciable owing to limited samples and collinearity.
For a total of 7533 participants.
Obtained after being adjusted for all variables in the model.
Malaysia was omitted ( no cases of oral potentially malignant disorder).
Obtained from global tests for the variable block added in the previous model.
Users with 0 to 1 DSM-5 symptoms were defined as having no BQ use disorder; those with 2 to 3 symptoms, mild BQ use disorder; those with 4 to 5 symptoms, moderate BQ use disorder; and those with 6 or more symptoms, severe BQ use disorder.
Combined and Conditional Effects of BUD Symptoms and Diagnosis
Table 5 shows that, compared with nonusers of BQ, users of BQ with moderate to severe BUD and the symptom of larger amount or longer history of BQ use had an 88.9-fold (95% CI, 16.6-476.5) higher risk of OPMD, and users of BQ with moderate to severe BUD and the symptom of tolerance had a 153.4-fold (95% CI, 33.4-703.6) higher risk of OPMD. The risks of these 2 symptoms were significantly higher (larger amount or longer history of BQ use: AOR ratio, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.1-4.6]; tolerance: AOR ratio, 4.1 [95% CI, 1.9-9.1]) than in users of BQ with BUD of equal severity but without the corresponding symptoms. Users of BQ with moderate to severe BUD without the symptom of neglected major roles had a 39.7-fold (95% CI, 7.8-201.7) higher risk of OPMD. This risk was higher (AOR ratio, 3.3 [95% CI, 1.6-6.9]) than in users of BQ with BUD of equal severity but with this symptom.
Table 5. Combined and Conditional Associations of DSM-5 Symptoms Among Users of BQ and BQ Use Disorder With OPMD, Combined Resultsa.
Group | DSM-5 Symptom | Users, % | Combined Association, AOR (95% CI)c | Conditional Association,b AOR Ratio (95% CI)c | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
OPMD (n = 371) | Non-OPMD (n = 7162) | ||||
Nonusers | NA | 43.8 | 81.8 | 1 [Reference] | NA |
BQ use disorder groupd | Larger amount or longer history of BQ use (impaired control) | NA | NA | NA | NA |
None or mild | No | 4.1 | 5.7 | 14.7 (5.1-42.6) | 1 [Reference] |
None or mild | Yes | 0.1 | 0.8 | 3.7 (0.3-38.9) | 0.2 (0.03-2.4) |
Moderate or severe | No | 26.5 | 7.8 | 38.8 (7.6-197.0) | 1 [Reference] |
Moderate or severe | Yes | 25.6 | 3.8 | 88.9 (16.6-476.5) | 2.3 (1.1-4.6) |
BQ use disorder groupd | Neglected major roles (social impairment) | NA | NA | NA | NA |
None or mild | No | 4.0 | 6.0 | 13.1 (4.5-38.2) | 1.3 (0.2-7.6) |
None or mild | Yes | 0.2 | 0.5 | 10.4 (1.6-66.6) | 1 [Reference] |
Moderate or severe | No | 42.9 | 6.4 | 39.7 (7.8-201.7) | 3.3 (1.6-6.9) |
Moderate or severe | Yes | 9.1 | 5.3 | 12.1 (2.1-68.0) | 1 [Reference] |
BQ use disorder groupd | Continued use despite knowing problems (risky use) | NA | NA | NA | NA |
None or mild | No | 3.8 | 5.7 | 14.9 (5.0-44.3) | 1 [Reference] |
None or mild | Yes | 0.3 | 0.9 | 11.6 (1.9-71.3) | 0.8 (0.1-4.5) |
Moderate or severe | No | 12.6 | 4.5 | 38.8 (7.7-194.3) | 1 [Reference] |
Moderate or severe | Yes | 39.4 | 7.1 | 71.1 (12.4-408.4) | 1.8 (0.9-3.8) |
BQ use disorder groupd | Tolerance (pharmacologic symptom) | NA | NA | NA | NA |
None or mild | No | 3.6 | 6.2 | 15.6 (5.4-44.6) | 1 [Reference] |
None or mild | Yes | 0.5 | 0.4 | 23.2 (3.4-157.9) | 1.5 (0.2-9.6) |
Moderate or severe | No | 15.1 | 7.5 | 37.0 (7.1-192.7) | 1 [Reference] |
Moderate or severe | Yes | 37.0 | 4.1 | 153.4 (33.4-703.6) | 4.1 (1.9-9.1) |
Abbreviations: AOR, adjusted odds ratio; BQ, betel-quid; OPMD, oral potentially malignant disorder.
Malaysia was omitted because there were no cases of OPMD.
The AORs of DSM-5 symptoms were obtained conditionally on BQ use disorder group.
Obtained after adjustment for sex, age, educational level, cigarette smoking, alcohol drinking, family use of BQ, frequency of use, amount of BQ use, year of use, all DSM-5 symptoms, and study region.
Users with 0 to 1 DSM-5 symptoms were defined as having no BQ use disorder, those with 2 to 3 symptoms as having mild BQ use disorder, those with 4 to 5 symptoms as having moderate BQ use disorder, and those with 6 or more symptoms as having severe BQ use disorder.
Discussion
The 11 DSM-5 symptoms of BUD could be modeled as a unidimensional BUD construct. We applied these measures and uncovered a high prevalence of DSM-5–defined BUD across the 6 BQ-endemic Asian populations investigated. The 12-month prevalence of BUD was 18.0%, and 86.0% of the users of BQ had some form of BUD. The prevalence of BUD in this study exceeds that reported for DSM-5–defined drug use disorder (3.9%) and is comparable to the results of national surveys in the United States for the prevalence of DSM-5–defined alcohol (13.9%) and nicotine (20.0%) use disorders.
We identified several country-specific factors associated with BUD. First, in mainland China, male sex was associated with BUD, and in Malaysia, female sex was associated with BUD. Age was negatively associated with BUD in mainland China and positively associated with BUD in Malaysia and Indonesia. These findings accurately capture the ethnodemographic circumstances in those regions; BQ use is an emerging trend in mainland China and is popular among young working-class men, whereas in Malaysia and Indonesia, BQ use is associated with the social customs of Austronesian language–speaking matrilocal societies, and thus has a longer history of use and is more closely associated with older female groups. Second, as seen in other SUDs, a lower educational level was associated with mild to severe BUD in Taiwan, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka. Therefore, preventive and interventional strategies should consider the socioeconomic characteristics of the groups using BQ. Third, nationwide reports have revealed that DSM-5–defined alcohol, nicotine, and drug use disorders are interrelated. Similarly, our analysis found that cigarette-smoking users of BQ were associated with no BUD to mild BUD in Taiwan and all BUD types in mainland China, and alcohol-drinking users of BQ were associated with specific BUD types in all study regions except for Indonesia. A negative association was found between cigarette smoking and mild to severe BUD in Malaysian and Indonesian users of BQ. For these 2 countries, BQ users tended not to be cigarette smokers (BQ users vs nonusers: AOR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.03-0.08). A possible explanation is a lower purchasing power for cigarettes because the price of cigarettes is higher than that of BQ and BQ is often used by people with relatively lower income in these 2 populations.
Our study showed that a high frequency of use of BQ and using high amounts of BQ correlated with all 4 pathologic behaviors (except between social impairment and amount) and were associated with moderate to severe BUD, thereby confirming the link between dose-enhanced use and substance addiction. The initiation of BQ use is often a result of use among peers or family members. In this study, BQ users with friends who chewed exhibited a higher likelihood of social impairment and developing mild BUD. By contrast, BQ users with family members who used BQ had a lower likelihood of social impairment (AOR, 0.6) but a higher likelihood of impaired control (AOR, 2.3) and significant levels of moderate to severe BUD, possibly because BQ use is accepted in certain family and social situations, whereas alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking may be deemed objectionable. Based on these findings, family-based interventions should be incorporated into BUD prevention and treatment strategies.
Use of BQ poses the greatest risk of developing OPMD among the principal risk factors. Based on DSM-IV criteria, 1 previous study found a 2.5- to 51.5-fold risk of OPMD among dependent users of BQ. Our study used DSM-5 criteria to identify 9.6- to 22.0-fold risks of OPMD among users of BQ with no BUD to mild BUD and 27.5- to 35.5-fold risks of OPMD among users of BQ with moderate to severe BUD from 6 Asian populations. Frequency and amount of BQ use correlated with BUD; however, our findings revealed that the association between BUD and OPMD was more substantial after adjustment for use characteristics, symptoms, and other covariates. This finding indicates that addictive consumption of BQ is linked to riskier biological outcomes.
A closer investigation into symptom-specific BUD revealed that a 2.0- to 4.3-fold risk of OPMD was associated with continued use despite knowing problems, having a larger amount or longer history of BQ use, and tolerance (Table 3; model 3). These symptoms potentially underlie the development of OPMD among users of BQ. Users of BQ with moderate to severe BUD and the symptom of tolerance had a conditionally higher risk of OPMD (AOR ratio, 4.1 [95% CI, 1.9-9.1]), as did those with a larger amount or longer history of BQ use (AOR ratio, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.1-4.6]), thereby emphasizing the role of pharmacologic symptoms and impaired control behaviors in BUD-associated risk of OPMD. The symptom of neglected major role of social impairment was associated with a lower risk of OPMD because sharing BQ in family and workplace environments can improve interpersonal relationships.
Strengths and Limitations
The strength of this consortium study was that our investigations were conducted under a single framework using an identical protocol, measuring tools, and diagnostic instruments. A major limitation of this study was its cross-sectional design, which precluded any causal interpretations. Our findings represent only a snapshot of the BUD situation in the study populations. Caution must be exercised when generalizing the findings of this study to other areas because use of BQ might differ even within a single country. We believe that our research framework and methods could be applied to areas or countries where BQ use is prevalent. Further issues regarding intercountry variations in BUD and OPMD are explained in more detail in the eAppendix in the Supplement. Our data are of significance to global research and policy agendas for the BQ and areca nut.
Conclusions
Symptoms, as defined by the DSM-5, have a unidimensional construct that underlies BUD. Current BQ users in Asian populations exhibit a high prevalence of DSM-5–defined BUD. Tolerance and larger amount or longer history of BQ use were the pathologic symptoms that most correlated with the enhanced risk of OPMD among users of BQ with moderate to severe BUD. We hypothesized that BUD is an intermediary step during the progression from BQ use toward developing OPMD. Appropriate psychiatric treatment should be considered when assisting patients in controlling BQ use to minimize the risk of developing OPMD.
eTable 1. Sociodemographic Factors and Substance Use
eTable 2. Correlations of Antecedent, Concurrent, and Subsequent Correlates with DSM-5 Betel-Quid Use Disorder Factor Scores
eTable 3. Adjusted Odds Ratio of Betel-Quid Use Disorder Associated with Demographic Factors and Substance Use
eTable 4. Prevalence of Oral Submucous Fibrosis, Oral Leukoplakia, and Oral Lichen Planus, and Oral Potentially Malignant Disorder
eTable 5. Prevalence of Oral Potentially Malignant Disorder Associated with DSM-5 Symptoms of Betel-Quid Use Disorder among Current Chewers, Combined Results from 6 Asian Populations (n=2060)
eAppendix. Further Explanations for Issues Regarding Intercountry Variations Between Betel-Quid Use Disorder (BUD) and Oral Potentially Malignant Disorder (OPMD), and Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) Variation Across Study Regions
eReferences
References
- 1.Boucher BJ, Mannan N. Metabolic effects of the consumption of Areca catechu. Addict Biol. 2002;7(1):103-110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Gupta PC, Warnakulasuriya S. Global epidemiology of areca nut usage. Addict Biol. 2002;7(1):77-83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Betel-quid and areca-nut chewing and some areca-nut derived nitrosamines. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 2004;85:1-334. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Lee CH, Ko AM, Warnakulasuriya S, et al. Intercountry prevalences and practices of betel-quid use in south, southeast and eastern Asia regions and associated oral preneoplastic disorders: an international collaborative study by Asian Betel-quid Consortium of south and east Asia. Int J Cancer. 2011;129(7):1741-1751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Lee CH, Ko AM, Yen CF, et al. Betel-quid dependence and oral potentially malignant disorders in six Asian countries. Br J Psychiatry. 2012;201(5):383-391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Lee CH, Ko AM, Warnakulasuriya S, et al. Population burden of betel quid abuse and its relation to oral premalignant disorders in South, Southeast, and East Asia: an Asian Betel-quid Consortium Study. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(3):e17-e24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lee CH, Chiang SL, Ko AM, et al. Betel-quid dependence domains and syndrome associated with betel-quid ingredients among chewers: an Asian multi-country evidence. Addiction. 2014;109(7):1194-1204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Lord GA, Lim CK, Warnakulasuriya S, Peters TJ. Chemical and analytical aspects of areca nut. Addict Biol. 2002;7(1):99-102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Chu NS. Effects of Betel chewing on the central and autonomic nervous systems. J Biomed Sci. 2001;8(3):229-236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Papke RL, Horenstein NA, Stokes C. Nicotinic activity of arecoline, the psychoactive element of ‘betel nuts’, suggests a basis for habitual use and anti-inflammatory activity. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Patidar KA, Parwani R, Wanjari SP, Patidar AP. Various terminologies associated with areca nut and tobacco chewing: a review. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2015;19(1):69-76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Bhat SJ, Blank MD, Balster RL, Nichter M, Nichter M. Areca nut dependence among chewers in a South Indian community who do not also use tobacco. Addiction. 2010;105(7):1303-1310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Benegal V, Rajkumar RP, Muralidharan K. Does areca nut use lead to dependence? Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;97(1-2):114-121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Gowing LR, Ali RL, Allsop S, et al. Global statistics on addictive behaviours: 2014 status report. Addiction. 2015;110(6):904-919. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Mirza SS, Shafique K, Vart P, Arain MI. Areca nut chewing and dependency syndrome: is the dependence comparable to smoking? a cross sectional study. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2011;6:23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Osborne PG, Ko YC, Wu MT, Lee CH. Intoxication and substance use disorder to Areca catechu nut containing betel quid: a review of epidemiological evidence, pharmacological basis and social factors influencing quitting strategies. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;179:187-197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hasin DS, O’Brien CP, Auriacombe M, et al. DSM-5 criteria for substance use disorders: recommendations and rationale. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170(8):834-851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Lee CH, Ko YC, Huang HL, et al. The precancer risk of betel quid chewing, tobacco use and alcohol consumption in oral leukoplakia and oral submucous fibrosis in southern Taiwan. Br J Cancer. 2003;88(3):366-372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ko YC, Huang YL, Lee CH, Chen MJ, Lin LM, Tsai CC. Betel quid chewing, cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption related to oral cancer in Taiwan. J Oral Pathol Med. 1995;24(10):450-453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Lee CH, Lee KW, Fang FM, et al. The neoplastic impact of tobacco-free betel-quid on the histological type and the anatomical site of aerodigestive tract cancers. Int J Cancer. 2012;131(5):E733-E743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Gupta B, Johnson NW. Systematic review and meta-analysis of association of smokeless tobacco and of betel quid without tobacco with incidence of oral cancer in South Asia and the Pacific. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e113385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Guha N, Warnakulasuriya S, Vlaanderen J, Straif K. Betel quid chewing and the risk of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: a meta-analysis with implications for cancer control. Int J Cancer. 2014;135(6):1433-1443. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.World Health Organization Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 25.First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams JBW. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Kramer IR, Pindborg JJ, Bezroukov V, Infirri JS; World Health Organization . Guide to epidemiology and diagnosis of oral mucosal diseases and conditions. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1980;8(1):1-26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Hu L, Bentler P. Fit indices in covariance structure analysis: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecifications. Psychol Methods. 1998;3(4):424-453. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238-246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Lee CH, Wu DC, Lee JM, et al. Anatomical subsite discrepancy in relation to the impact of the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and betel quid on esophageal cancer. Int J Cancer. 2007;120(8):1755-1762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Grant BF, Saha TD, Ruan WJ, et al. Epidemiology of DSM-5 drug use disorder: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73(1):39-47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Grant BF, Goldstein RB, Saha TD, et al. Epidemiology of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions III. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72(8):757-766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Chou SP, Goldstein RB, Smith SM, et al. The epidemiology of DSM-5 nicotine use disorder: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016;77(10):1404-1412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Zhang X, Reichart PA. A review of betel quid chewing, oral cancer and precancer in mainland China. Oral Oncol. 2007;43(5):424-430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Jordan FM, Gray RD, Greenhill SJ, Mace R. Matrilocal residence is ancestral in Austronesian societies. Proc Biol Sci. 2009;276(1664):1957-1964. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Lin CC, Tamí-Maury I, Ma WF, et al. Social and cultural context of betel quid consumption in Taiwan and implications for prevention and cessation interventions. Subst Use Misuse. 2017;52(5):646-655. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Strickland SS. Anthropological perspectives on use of the areca nut. Addict Biol. 2002;7(1):85-97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Amarasinghe HK, Johnson NW, Lalloo R, Kumaraarachchi M, Warnakulasuriya S. Derivation and validation of a risk-factor model for detection of oral potentially malignant disorders in populations with high prevalence. Br J Cancer. 2010;103(3):303-309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Mehrtash H, Duncan K, Parascandola M, et al. Defining a global research and policy agenda for betel quid and areca nut. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(12):e767-e775. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
eTable 1. Sociodemographic Factors and Substance Use
eTable 2. Correlations of Antecedent, Concurrent, and Subsequent Correlates with DSM-5 Betel-Quid Use Disorder Factor Scores
eTable 3. Adjusted Odds Ratio of Betel-Quid Use Disorder Associated with Demographic Factors and Substance Use
eTable 4. Prevalence of Oral Submucous Fibrosis, Oral Leukoplakia, and Oral Lichen Planus, and Oral Potentially Malignant Disorder
eTable 5. Prevalence of Oral Potentially Malignant Disorder Associated with DSM-5 Symptoms of Betel-Quid Use Disorder among Current Chewers, Combined Results from 6 Asian Populations (n=2060)
eAppendix. Further Explanations for Issues Regarding Intercountry Variations Between Betel-Quid Use Disorder (BUD) and Oral Potentially Malignant Disorder (OPMD), and Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) Variation Across Study Regions
eReferences